Thought experiment: Should public leaders be tested for psychopathy?

[ChocolateMoose123]

[MENTION=7842]Z Buck McFate[/MENTION]

The term "Mental illness" consists of personality disorders as well as chemical imbalances. So the term mental illness applies to people with personality disorders as well as schizophrenics, etc. It's a general term to encompass all.

I use the term in that way in this thread. By saying "mental illness" I am not comparing any two disorders/imbalances or making intonation that any one is the same as the other.

I did say that anti-social personality can and often works co-morbidly with other disorders. It does. That is a very large point you're glossing over here as its very important in your premise and the hypothetical criteria you would use to vet the "psychopath".

However, I understand I could have been more specific.

I'm not being self-righteous or indignant when I say the thread premise is ignorant. I mean that in the strict definition, not as an personal insult.

Now that's out of the way:

If I understand what you're saying is that lack of affective empathy and/or emotional empathy is the golden ticket characteristic that effectively labels a "psychopath" correctly. Do you know how a psychopath uses empathy? How they can manipulate, con, control and disarm individuals?


I can tell you we don't know that exactly. We are trying to learn this and it's not a zero sum in these individuals but your premise somehow assumes we can identify this (pre-action) in the individual and pre-emptively stop bad things from happening via test.

Any "psychopath" would probably pass that test because look at this link: ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER - Antisocial Personality Disorder - National Library of Medicine - PubMed Health

The prevalence of antisocial personality disorder among prisoners is slightly less than 50% (Fazel & Danesh, 2002; Hart & Hare, 1989; Singleton et al., 1998). Similarly, epidemiological studies in the community estimate that only 47% of people meeting criteria for antisocial personality disorder had significant arrest records; a history of aggression, unemployment and promiscuity were more common than serious crimes among people with antisocial personality disorder (Robins, 1987; Robins et al., 1991). These data therefore show that the relationship between antisocial personality disorder and offending is not straightforward.

Anti-social personality is a baseline disgnosis. "Psychopaths" often have co-morbid disorders that compound and add complexity to them. (Narcissism, etc).

A "psychopath" is not any one thing but it's also not any SPECIFIC number of more things! We can know characteristics but cannot correctly identify/determine "healthy" or "unhealthy" levels of these characteristics without a foundation of action supporting it.

Most especially, if we take ACTION of the individual out of the criteria for determining diagnosis then we are really being irresponsible. We would essentially be telling someone what they are going to do before they do it and taking action against them.

It would be like telling every woman with the BRCA1 gene they must have mandatory mastectomies because breast cancer is dangerous and it kills. It's just highly unethical.

That's what is so difficult about pinning it down. In pinning it down so that a stamp can be placed on an individual to pre-emptively stop them would be so invasive, so irresponsible to defy comprehension.

 

[that's not my name]

sure, and so should citizens who wish to vote.

Why?

 

[Z Buck McFate]

[MENTION=7842]Z Buck McFate[/MENTION]

The term "Mental illness" consists of personality disorders as well as chemical imbalances. So the term mental illness applies to people with personality disorders as well as schizophrenics, etc. It's a general term to encompass all.

I use the term in that way in this thread. By saying "mental illness" I am not comparing any two disorders/imbalances or making intonation that any one is the same as the other.

I did say that anti-social personality can and often works co-morbidly with other disorders. It does. That is a very large point you're glossing over here as its very important in your premise and the hypothetical criteria you would use to vet the "psychopath".

However, I understand I could have been more specific.

I'm not being self-righteous or indignant when I say the thread premise is ignorant. I mean that in the strict definition, not as an personal insult.

Yeah, I didn't take it as a personal insult, just a catch-all way to quickly dismiss a bunch of information without explaining why exactly. Now that you've explained why, it makes sense- in light of viewing this all from a very practical at-level-of-actually-diagnosing standpoint it is very ignorant. That's not the target I was shooting for. As I said, if I could start the thread over I would leave out the word "psychopath" (because it brings in the specifics of DSM diagnosis- and truth be told, I actually have so any issues with the way psychiatry/psychology diagnosis are currently done that I can't even.... that's not the can of worms I'd intended to open) and the word "test" (because the whole Minority Report/Gattica world of regulation isn't what I was going for either). I'd simply put forth the question of whether people consider emotional/affective empathy important or mandatory in a public leader.

Now that's out of the way:

If I understand what you're saying is that lack of affective empathy and/or emotional empathy is the golden ticket characteristic that effectively labels a "psychopath" correctly. Do you know how a psychopath uses empathy? How they can manipulate, con, control and disarm individuals?

I can tell you we don't know that exactly. We are trying to learn this and it's not a zero sum in these individuals but your premise somehow assumes we can identify this (pre-action) in the individual and pre-emptively stop bad things from happening via test.

I didn't mean it to sound "now that we can.." so much as "if we could....". Theoretically. In rereading the op, I can see how it took the Minority Report/Gattica direction as if I was asking "is this something we should start implementing any day now?" At the time I thought "remember this is just a thought experiment" expressed that, but it doesn't.

The thing is? I already think the DSM is a chemical straight jacket. The industry needs a shit ton less GET 'ER DONE attitude and research into what chemicals will poke the 'right' part of the brain to make people more 'productive and efficient', and a lot more actual humanization and compassion.

Any "psychopath" would probably pass that test because look at this link: ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER - Antisocial Personality Disorder - National Library of Medicine - PubMed Health




Anti-social personality is a baseline disgnosis. "Psychopaths" often have co-morbid disorders that compound and add complexity to them. (Narcissism, etc).

A "psychopath" is not any one thing but it's also not any SPECIFIC number of more things! We can know characteristics but cannot correctly identify/determine "healthy" or "unhealthy" levels of these characteristics without a foundation of action supporting it.

Most especially, if we take ACTION of the individual out of the criteria for determining diagnosis then we are really being irresponsible. We would essentially be telling someone what they are going to do before they do it and taking action against them.

It would be like telling every woman with the BRCA1 gene they must have mandatory mastectomies because breast cancer is dangerous and it kills. It's just highly unethical.

That's what is so difficult about pinning it down. In pinning it down so that a stamp can be placed on an individual to pre-emptively stop them would be so invasive, so irresponsible to defy comprehension.

It seems to me like this is what's made the thread go South. Again, if I could restart it, I'd leave out the p word. (And "test".)

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

I'd simply put forth the question of whether people consider emotional/affective empathy important or mandatory in a public leader.

My answer is yes. Emotional/affective empathy is important in a public leader. I disagree that it should be mandatory, (i.e. required via authoritative determination).

 

[bedeviled1]

Do you have someone in mind?

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I do kind of want to add (in spite of myself) that there actually are past studies in which they tried to rehabilitate psychopaths and teach them empathy- all it did was increase their cognitive empathy/give them more tools to effectively manipulate. Ronson mentioned it in his book, and I've heard it mentioned elsewhere.

I'd be completely open to seeing studies which show brain scans show an actual increase in the affective/emotional empathy area. I'd actually be really heartened and glad to see it. But afaik, in all the studies about how brain activity can change, I've not seen a single one about psychopaths. And if it did, that would mean they are no longer someone biologically incapable of affective/emotional empathy. (Regardless of whether the label "psychopath" is still applied to them- again, this isn't about the label, it's about the condition of a person being biologically incapable of affective/emotional empathy.) So that's kind of a null point anyway.

Also, something that's been on my mind during this thread is a character from Person Of Interest named Shaw. I think she's supposed to be a psychopath, and seems to be one who has a 'code' like Dexter that keeps her psychopathy in check (and only harms people whom the human race would probably be better off with anyway). [1] I would be interested to find out if it's even possible for this to be the case in reality (and have been kinda wondering this since Dexter- because honestly? I'd like to know them, and that's high praise from an e5). But even within those fictional roles, there are occasional hiccups of humanity that sorta belie the psychopathy- which for me, takes away the suspension of disbelief. And [2] the thing is, where psychopathy exists without narcissism (the need for excessive external praise/adulation), I doubt the person would want to be in a role of leadership anyway? So supposing it's possible, that it isn't just idealistic fiction, that a psychopath can exist without the narcissism that would make him/her generally dangerous/parasitic and they were able to live by a 'code' that made them relatively safe- a distinct if- if you remove the desire for leadership, it also becomes a null point in the op question.

I definitely don't know a great deal about the way psychiatric labels are dished out, primarily because reading about it invariably disheartens and discourages me. The whole mental health profession is currently more dehumanizing than I care to follow. But regardless of official psychiatric labels, or whether someone who biologically isn't capable of affective/emotional empathy also has other labels affixed to him/her (because this isn't about singling out people who are only labeled psychopaths, but people who biologically aren't capable of seeing other people as anything more than objects regardless of any additional labels)- there is a condition that exists where someone is biologically incapable of affective/emotional empathy.

All that being said, I suppose the next question that comes up for me is: what exactly makes anyone want to be a leader? I'm honestly asking. I have no desire to a leader of my own. The first guess that comes to mind is "caring about people and wanting everyone to be taken care of". At least, that what makes a "good" leader, in my mind. eta: And it seems to me like the best leaders are the ones who genuinely care about people. Not just those who need to be seen as people who care, but those who genuinely care. This distinction is important, imo, because when the latter is accused of not caring- they'll get angry, hurt, maybe vindictive, because they feel threatened the label of 'caring' might be taken away (ie. it's about their ego). But people who are genuinely caring don't nee-e-e-ed to be seen as caring so badly that they can't take criticism- they're more capable of actually listening to those they care about. I think being able to listen is an essential part of being a good 'leader'.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

Watch the show Psycho Pass and then tell me what you think.